Evidence Hub

Circular RNAs in Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Scoping Review of Clinical, Preclinical, and In Silico Evidence on Diagnostic and Therapeutic Potentials

Ghafourian AR, Hamdi M, Soltan Mohseni A, Davoudi M, Choobineh H, Nabatchian F, Afrisham R

Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, 2026

2 citations

Abstract

Background and objective: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) involve chronic inflammation, impaired angiogenesis, oxidative stress, and disrupted fibroblast-keratinocyte interactions. Circular RNAs (circRNAs), a category of stable non-coding RNAs, have become essential regulators of these processes; nevertheless, their comprehensive functions in DFUs are still inadequately characterised. This scoping review integrated clinical, preclinical, and in silico evidence on circRNAs in DFUs to assess their diagnostic, mechanistic, and therapeutic potential.

Methods: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were conducted on July 16, 2025, according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Eligible papers included clinical investigations of circRNAs in the tissues of patients with DFUs, preclinical animal models assessing circRNA-based therapies, and computational predictions of circRNA-miRNA-mRNA networks. Information was collected on circRNA expression, molecular targets, clinical associations, and therapeutic effects.

Results: Twenty-two studies (7 clinical, 13 preclinical, 2 in silico) were selected. Clinical studies found hsa_circ_PRKDC, hsa_circ_072697, hsa_circ_080968, and hsa_circ_0000907 to be associated with wound severity, tissue perfusion, and keratinocyte proliferation in patients with diabetic foot ulcers. Preclinical studies showed that delivery of mmu_circHIPK3, mmu_circMYO9B, and mmu_circ_Astn1 via exosomes or nanoparticles improved angiogenesis,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a review, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free